Is this why my eyeballs suddenly stopped seeing anything below body temperature?
Comment on Should we tell the whole truth about climate change? by Bart R
↧
↧
Comment on Sir Paul Nurse on the science-society relationship by Latimer Alder
@Bart R
Do you follow the argument?
No.
↧
Comment on Sir Paul Nurse on the science-society relationship by Bart R
Latimer
I also don’t follow the elephants in parades, and for the same reason.
↧
Comment on Demon Coal by cwon14
There is no problem with technical discussions either, the line here is the “no comment” (except vague ones) policy of Dr. Curry on the political ID of the core pro-warm science community that she has been part of for close to 30 years.
It goes too far, skeptics need to grow up but the truth is many skeptics are Green in nature as well. It’s clearly a divide in the skeptic community and the ability to minimize the political color of the AGW movement has been used to great effect.
The science for or against AGW has always been vague and weak, it’s politics that changes and is most important regarding policy. Tactically the image of the science “high ground” does matter and I understand and respect those skeptics fighting for it but it only matters as such due to the weak science backgrounds of the general public who could ever have bought the AGW proposition in the first place. AGW reflects a decline in social reasoning and poorer educational results. There is also the impact of government funding to create phantom science industries like AGW at work as well. It all came in a really good brochure and appealed to the baby boomer leftwing hungry to attack carbon interests despite how hypocritical or irrational the effort. AGW is like a modern hulahoop, burning your draft card or the Beenie Baby craze rolled into one. There are international narratives as well like scapegoating corporations or wealth that are standard fair in the third world. AGW is packaged to please a variety of mobs.
↧
Comment on Should we tell the whole truth about climate change? by coalraker
Mmmm maybe eyeballs are cherry-picking only warm(ist) data.
↧
↧
Comment on Should we tell the whole truth about climate change? by ceteris non paribus
No. That’s just the hormones kicking in. 
↧
Comment on Sir Paul Nurse on the science-society relationship by Pekka Pirilä
I’m sure that most climate scientist have never seen that “gravy train”, which is more in the imagination of SamNC than in the real world.
It’s true that many climate scientists would like to be IPCC authors, but the rewards are so questionable that one may wonder why they do that. They don’t normally get any extra income from that, but they have to work hard. Their employers do in most cases allow them to use part of their working day for the IPCC work but even so it means a lot of extra work.
Having been an IPCC author has some value in later career development, but for a typical academic scientist that’s less than the loss from having spent time in writing the IPCC report rather than doing own research and writing original publications.
The main reason for being willing to be an IPCC author is in most cases probably the little prestige that it brings, not any more material advantages that might be linked to it.
All the above may vary a little from country to country and also from an employer to an employer, but basically there’s nothing glamorous and no significant economic advantages linked to the work as IPCC author.
(I’ve not been an IPCC author, but I have met many, perhaps most Finnish authors and know some of them rather well. The above is based mostly on, what I have heard from them.)
↧
Comment on Should we tell the whole truth about climate change? by coalraker
So Bart’s not a necrophiliac after all then
↧
Comment on Should we tell the whole truth about climate change? by cwon14
Max, makes lots of sense but then you attack me for the facility arguments Dr. Curry makes to protect these very same forces in direct conversation.
They’re only “advocates” the story line goes, ask no more.
↧
↧
Comment on On the adjustments to the HadSST3 data set by selti1
Who on the other camp is going to start to say:
Regarding Man-made global warming, the “Emperor has no Clothes”?
↧
Comment on On the adjustments to the HadSST3 data set by Doug Cotton
Climate data should be weighted according to thermal energy distribution, with the ration of land:ocean about 6:89 I understand.
There are other areas also where a few “adjustments: are needed ….
Climatologists love to talk about energy being trapped by carbon dioxide and thus not exiting at the top of the atmosphere (TOA.)
It is nowhere near as simple as that. All the radiation gets to space sooner or later. Carbon dioxide just scatters it on its way so you don’t see radiation in those bandwidths at TOA. The energy still gets out, and there is no proof that it doesn’t, because climatologists don’t have the necessary simultaneous measurements made all over the world.
In the hemisphere that is cooling at night there is far more getting out, whereas in the hemisphere in the sunlight there is far more coming in. This is obvious.
When I placed a wide necked vacuum flask filled with water in the sun yesterday (with the lid off) the temperature of the water rose from 19.5 deg.C at 5:08am to 29.1 deg.C at 1:53pm while the air around it rose from 19.0 to 31.9 deg.C.
What did the backradiation do at night? Well from 9:15pm till 12:05am the water cooled from 24.2 deg.C to 23.4 deg.C while the air cooled from 24.2 deg.C to 22.7 deg.C.
According to those energy diagrams the backradiation, even at night, is about half the solar radiation during the day. Well, maybe it is, but it does not have anything like half the effect on the temperature as you can confirm in your own backyard.
This is because, when radiation from a cooler atmosphere strikes a warmer surface it undergoes “resonant scattering” (sometimes called pseudo-scattering) and this means its energy is not converted to thermal energy. This is the reason that heat does not transfer from cold to hot. If it did the universe would go crazy.
When opposing radiation is scattered, its own energy replaces energy which the warmer body would have radiated from its own thermal energy supply.
You can imagine it as if you are just about to pay for fuel at a gas station when a friend travelling with you offers you cash for the right amount. It’s quicker and easier for you to just pay with the cash, rather than going through the longer process of using a credit card to pay from your own account. So it is with radiation. The warmer body cools more slowly as a result because a ready source of energy from incident radiation is quicker to just “reflect” back into the atmosphere, rather than have to convert its own thermal energy to radiated energy.
The ramifications are this:
Not all radiation from the atmosphere is the same. That from cooler regions has less effect. Also, that with fewer frequencies under its Planck curve has less effect again.
Each carbon dioxide molecule thus has far less effect than each water vapour molecule because the latter can radiate with more frequencies which “oppose” the frequencies being emitted by the surface, especially the oceans.
Furthermore, it is only the radiative cooling process of the surface which is slowed down. There are other processes like evaporative cooling and diffusion followed by convection which cannot be affected by backradiation, and which will tend to compensate for any slowing of the radiation.
This is why, at night, the water in the flask cools nearly as fast as the air around it. The net effect on the rate of cooling is totally negligible.
The backradiation does not affect temperatures anywhere near as much as solar radiation, even though its “W/m^2″ is probably about half as much.
And there are other reasons also why it all balances out and climate follows natural cycles without any anthropogenic effect. This is explained in detail in my peer-reviewed publication now being further reviewed by dozens of scientists.
http://principia-scientific.org/publications/psi_radiated_energy.pdf
↧
Comment on On the adjustments to the HadSST3 data set by capt. dallas 0.8 +/-0.2
Beth, don’t forget in the 40s and 50s there were still grog rations
↧
Comment on On the adjustments to the HadSST3 data set by Captain Kangaroo
Nothing vague about it Webby. Fundamental conceptual problems leading to a grossly misleading formulation.
Still less do changes in state have anything to do with C02 – which is gaseous at any pressure and temperature to be found on Earth. The solubility curve is hyperbolic – so what? Why not just use the empirical curves and calculate the volume outgassed with temperature. You will find that CO2 is a multi-compartment problem – rather than one of a simple solubility in ocean water.
Again with the fundamental conceptual problems. Sometimes I wonder if you are hoaxing or simply delusional. Perhaps Occam’s razor suggests the latter.
Best regards
Captain Kangaroo
↧
↧
Comment on On the adjustments to the HadSST3 data set by Beth Cooper
Capt.d @ 7.10 pm
Guess life on deck could get pretty chilly, a tot of rum to keep out the cold?
Man overboard!
↧
Comment on Sir Paul Nurse on the science-society relationship by Peter Davies
In a blog reputations are based on good content. FB is OK for keeping in contact with and exchanging photographs with family members across the globe. I control who accesses what information about me that I’m willing to share. You will have noticed that I have now linked my name to my FB page.
↧
Comment on On the adjustments to the HadSST3 data set by NW
I think they still get ‘em in the Royal Navy. I had a student who was on a US frigate during the first gulf war, and I think he said they always enjoyed a little social visit to H.M.s ships, since it meant drinks.
↧
Comment on On the adjustments to the HadSST3 data set by WebHubTelescope
“Again with the fundamental conceptual problems. Sometimes I wonder if you are hoaxing or simply delusional. Perhaps Occam’s razor suggests the latter.
Best regards
Captain Kangaroo”
Notice how the guy shows anger over a simple applied math exercise which worked out a canonical set of differential equations. He is bitter that I could work it out as a closed-form analytical expression and ends with the typical “so what” marginalization.
If that is all you got, I am a happy camper.
↧
↧
Comment on On the adjustments to the HadSST3 data set by David Wojick
Fascinating! I had been thinking about a random walk model of warming and this seems closely related.
↧
Comment on Demon Coal by WebHubTelescope
“We don’t really need to analyze. I’m content to leave that to the oil producers. If they decide it isn’t worth their while, then we are done.”
Typical short-sightedness. Interesting that you hold the naive belief that everyone is looking out for your best interests. Like any other seller they will simply drain the customer’s funds and then leave them hanging without any options when the product dries up.
↧
Comment on On the adjustments to the HadSST3 data set by stefanthedenier
@ selti1 | March 16, 2012 at 7:15 pm |
Mate, I have being saying from day one that ''the king is naked'' unfortunately, the ''fake Skeptics'' cannot say that about the Warmist - because they would have exposed that: '' the Emperes / themselves'' don't even have a fig-leaf on. Warmist are lying that is: 90% possibility of a GLOBAL warming in 100years. The Fake Skeptics have being constantly lying that is 101% accuracy of smaller GLOBAL warming in 100 years ++ the localized warmings / ice ages in the past were all GLOBAL for them.
Michael Mann was last night on Australian TV; he was asked: -what about avoiding ''the Fake's GLOBAL warming in medieval ages?" His reply was: it was warming only in Europe' we found after that, at that time in the tropics was cooler'' Checkmate Fakes!!!!!!!!!! The biggest liar on the planet, Mann is using your tactics / lies, to cover up for his lies
Truth: Mann doesn't need to check in the tropics, to say that he did. It's enough for him to know that both camps are lying - competing with each other who is going to say bigger lies. He knows that he is safe, because if the Fake Skeptics say: Warmist don't have even 0,0000000000001% of the data ESSENTIAL, for knowing what is the temp; would have exposed that: ''their lies about past phony GLOBAL warmings have even less data''. That makes the Fake Skeptics bigger part of the crime. { if policeman assists the criminal - makes the cop in the eyes of the law, as bigger part of the crime}
So, with confidence, Man's conclusion was:'' now is 1C warmer planet than 1000y ago'' Ian Plimer's Zombies cannot say that: -''data for 1012AD is almost non-existent - because at that time the earth was flat - 70% of the GLOBAL surface area didn't exist''... Because the ''Fake Fundamentalist'' have being constantly lying that ''at that time THE WHOLE PLANET was warmer, Mann and the rest of the Swindlers can rub Fake's noses... on innocent people's expenses. Thanks to Ian Plimer's sick EGOTISM
Secular Warmist / Skeptics believers on the street, which are 80% of the people; would like to know the truth - unfortunately the media get their informations from the Fundamentalist in both camps. They call me extreme, for saying and PROVING that: warmings and ice ages are never GLOBAL
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
